Authored By: Vaishnavi Santosh Nighute
ILS Law College Pune
Introduction
According to data from the Housing and Land Rights Network, 7.38 lakh people were displaced and over 1.5 lakh homes were demolished in India in 2022–23 alone through state-driven punitive demolitions.[1] A defining instance of this pattern occurred in April 2022, when authorities demolished structures in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri locality in the aftermath of communal violence in the area.[2] This practice, widely termed “bulldozer justice,” describes a recurring pattern in which state authorities demolish the homes of individuals merely accused of crimes, typically justifying such action by citing violations of municipal law. The matter reached the Supreme Court through Writ Petition (Civil) No. 295 of 2022, filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind, and was decided on 13 November 2024 in In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures.[3] Although the resulting guidelines introduced meaningful procedural safeguards, this article argues that they target the wrong actor: the guidelines bind municipal officers, while the political actors who order demolitions punitively remain unaddressed, allowing procedural compliance to coexist with underlying punitive intent. This article first outlines the constitutional and statutory framework, then examines the Court’s guidelines, before arguing that their procedural focus leaves a structural gap open to circumvention.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court in this judgment explicitly held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to shelter, with Article 19 invoked alongside it to reinforce this protection. The petitioners further pleaded Article 300A, which guarantees the right to property, and Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law, both cited in the judgment alongside Article 21. Notably, demolitions of this kind are rarely justified under criminal law; instead, state authorities typically invoke ordinary municipal or town-planning legislation, citing “unauthorised construction” as the basis for action, even where the underlying motive is punitive. To address this gap between stated legal basis and actual intent, the Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 to do “complete justice” and issue binding guidelines applicable nationwide. This procedural framework draws on the Court’s earlier holding in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India,[4] which established that any procedure depriving a person of life or liberty under Article 21 must be fair, just, and reasonable, not arbitrary.
The Court’s Guidelines
The Court held that it is illegal to demolish a building merely because its owner or occupant is accused of a crime. Justice Gavai stated that depriving people of shelter in this manner would be wholly unconstitutional. To prevent this, the Court laid down five binding guidelines.
First, municipal authorities must issue a minimum fifteen-day show-cause notice before any demolition, regardless of what the applicable municipal law itself requires. Second, the affected individual must be given a right to be heard before the property is demolished. Third, the authority cannot proceed with demolition without passing a written order explaining why it is the last resort — the Court noted that illegal constructions are often “compoundable” through payment of a fee or by retaining the structure, and that where only part of a structure is illegal, only that part should be removed. Demolition of the entire structure is permitted only when neither of these less restrictive alternatives is possible.[5]
Fourth, the affected individual must have the right to appeal the demolition order. Fifth, authorities must maintain a digital record of demolition notices, so that they cannot falsely claim a notice was served days or weeks earlier — a safeguard the Court introduced after flagging backdating as a known evasion tactic.
Non-compliance with these guidelines amounts to contempt of court, with responsible officials held personally liable; costs are deducted from their salary to fund rebuilding and compensate for damages. The Court further noted that where one structure is demolished while similarly situated structures nearby remain untouched, this raises a rebuttable presumption of bad faith.
III. Critical Analysis: A Procedural Fix for a Substantive Problem
The Supreme Court’s guidelines are directed primarily at municipal officers, who are responsible for issuing notices, conducting hearings, and carrying out demolitions. However, these officers were never the ones publicly justifying demolitions as punitive — they have consistently relied on the neutral language of municipal law, citing “unauthorised construction” as the ground for action.
The guidelines, however, leave unaddressed the political actors who order punitive demolitions in the first place. This reveals a deeper flaw in the Court’s framing: bulldozer action was never truly arbitrary in the sense of being random or careless — it has always been targeted and punitive, directed at specific individuals for specific reasons.[6]
This gap may reflect a kind of judicial restraint. Courts are usually reluctant to name or restrain political actors directly, since doing so risks stepping into separation-of-powers territory — the judiciary can bind how officers act, but it is far more cautious about policing political speech or intent. That restraint makes sense on its own terms; courts aren’t built to rule on someone’s motive. But it leaves the real problem untouched, because the officers bound by these guidelines were never the ones deciding which house to target in the first place.
This loophole is not merely theoretical. Even after the 2024 judgment, a similar pattern emerged in Prayagraj, where officials simply affixed the demolition notice to the wall of the property instead of properly serving it, technically satisfying the requirement of “giving notice” while denying the occupant a genuine opportunity to respond.[7] The Court caught this only after the demolition had already taken place, not before — showing that the guidelines fix how demolitions happen, but do little to intervene in who is targeted and why, until the damage is already done.
A stronger safeguard would move beyond after-the-fact punishment, like holding officers in contempt, and instead put a neutral check in place before any demolition happens. A judge or an independent body should be the one asking why this particular structure was chosen, before the bulldozer ever arrives, not after.
Conclusion
The 2024 guidelines mark real progress, but they remain procedural rather than substantive — they fix how demolitions happen, not who decides which person’s house is targeted, and why. Articles 21 and 300A of the Constitution guarantee affected individuals the right to shelter and property, and the five guidelines laid down by the Court go some way toward ensuring these rights are not breached without reasonable safeguards. Yet a critical gap remains: while officers who violate the guidelines can be held liable, the political actors who actually decide which structures to target remain untouched. A neutral body should review the reason for targeting a specific structure before demolition, rather than simply punishing officers after the fact. Until political accountability catches up with procedural reform, punitive demolitions will keep finding compliant routes to the same outcome, just with more paperwork attached.
Reference(S):
In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, 2024 INSC 866 (India).
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).
Housing and Land Rights Network, India, Forced Evictions in India 2022–23 (2023).
Gautam Bhatia, Better Late than Never: The Supreme Court’s Bulldozer Guidelines Judgment, Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy (Nov. 13, 2024), https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2024/11/13/better-late-than-never-the-supreme-courts-bulldozer-guidelines-judgment/.
Supreme Court Observer, Bulldozer Demolitions Remind of a “Lawless, Ruthless State of Affairs,” Declares Supreme Court, as It Issues Pan-India Guidelines (Nov. 13, 2024), https://www.scobserver.in.
Drishti IAS, SC Upholds Due Process in Prayagraj Demolition Case (2025), https://www.drishtiias.com.
Bar and Bench, Read Directions Passed by Supreme Court to Curb “Bulldozer Justice” (Nov. 13, 2024).
[1]Housing and Land Rights Network, India, Forced Evictions in India 2022–23 (2023).
[2]See Bar and Bench, Read Directions Passed by Supreme Court to Curb “Bulldozer Justice” (Nov. 13, 2024).
[3]In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, 2024 INSC 866 (India).
[4]Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248 (India).
[5]In Re: Directions in the Matter of Demolition of Structures, 2024 INSC 866, ¶¶ 80–82 (India).
[6]Gautam Bhatia, Better Late than Never: The Supreme Court’s Bulldozer Guidelines Judgment, Indian Constitutional Law and Philosophy (Nov. 13, 2024), https://indconlawphil.wordpress.com/2024/11/13/better-late-than-never-the-supreme-courts-bulldozer-guidelines-judgment/.
[7]Drishti IAS, SC Upholds Due Process in Prayagraj Demolition Case (2025), https://www.drishtiias.com.
